Cml Numbers

[Ash4781]

I couldn't see the CML numbers though suspect they are on here! I can't post a link but cml posted a detailed analysis. Ftb average ltv is now 84% and average income multiple now 3.43. The remortgage market looks incredibly weak on the year on year.

[little fish]

I didn't see the cml stats anywhere on site either so here's the link.

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3953

Home-owner remortgage activity in May totalled 21,600 remortgage loans advanced in the period. Unlike house purchase loans, the number of remortgage loans declined in May compared to April, down 18% and down 26% on May last year. These loans totalled £3.3bn in value, a decrease of 18% month-on-month and down 15% compared to May 2013.

BTL up.

Buy-to-let lending in May totalled £2.2bn, representing 16,000 loans. This was up 4% in number of loans compared to April and up 5% in value. Compared to May 2013, this was a 14% increase by volume and 22% by value.

[winkie]

Secured debt can open new doors to more cheap debt.....you have got to be in it to win it.

[Ash4781]

I didn't see the cml stats anywhere on site either so here's the link.

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3953

11.07.2014-remortgage-lending-website-graph.png

BTL up.

11.07.2014-btl-lending-graph-website.png

Ta. I read as btl purchase volume growth was ahead of the wider market. I couldn't see the average btl ltv though. Maybe it is there or can be calculated from other data ?

It could by a Mmr effect I suppose. Too early to tell ?

[FreeTrader]

The reason the CML monthly numbers don't get posted as much these days is because many of us find it hard to take them seriously.

This is the main table they show in today's release for home owner purchase and remortgage (highlighting is mine):

Note that they claim that loans for house purchase in May (these are actual loans, not approvals) were up 13.1% by volume on May 2013 and 24.7% by value.

This gives figures for 2013 of (57,900 / 1.131) = 51,200 for volume and (£9.6bn / 1.247) = £7.7bn value.

Okay, so let's go back a year and look at their press release in July 2013 and see what they showed for May 2013 at that time:

Hmm, how odd. They give volume as 55,900 and value as £8.4bn. Somehow they now appear to have 'lost' 4,700 loans from May 2013, totalling £700 million. Oops.

So, either they've made a mistake on the percentages - meaning the numbers aren't up nearly as much year-on-year as they make out - or the May 2013 figures were originally significantly overstated. Either way, what faith can we have that the May 2014 numbers are accurate?

[winkie]

Vested interest/agenda = vested statistics......measure, cut and sew it to make it fit.

Edited July 10, 2014 by winkie

[peakbear]

The reason the CML monthly numbers don't get posted as much these days is because many of us find it hard to take them seriously.

This is the main table they show in today's release for home owner purchase and remortgage (highlighting is mine):

Note that they claim that loans for house purchase in May (these are actual loans, not approvals) were up 13.1% by volume on May 2013 and 24.7% by value.

This gives figures for 2013 of (57,900 / 1.131) = 51,200 for volume and (£9.6bn / 1.247) = £7.7bn value.

Okay, so let's go back a year and look at their press release in July 2013 and see what they showed for May 2013 at that time:

Hmm, how odd. They give volume as 55,900 and value as £8.4bn. Somehow they now appear to have 'lost' 4,700 loans from May 2013, totalling £700 million. Oops.

So, either they've made a mistake on the percentages - meaning the numbers aren't up nearly as much year-on-year as they make out - or the May 2013 figures were originally significantly overstated. Either way, what faith can we have that the May 2014 numbers are accurate?

I use to generate and submit the monthly figures for both the FSA and the CML when the regulations first came in (about 2007). My guess for main difference is that the most recent figures will be based on approvals. The later figures would be updated when the approval didn't become a full loan. Therefore older figures would be revised downwards over time to potentially give the percentage differences actually shown (And also of course be inaccurate figures anyway in that case.) The other thing I remember from doing the figures were the surprising amount of selfcert mortgages approved by the 'safe' lender I worked for.

[peakbear]

For anyone interested this is likely to be the information the numbers are based on. All institutions reported to the FSA and also voluntarily submitted them to the CML (In which case you got to look at some of the detail of all submissions.)

http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/systems-reporting/gabriel/system-information/data-reference-guides/psd/psd001

[Ash4781]

The reason the CML monthly numbers don't get posted as much these days is because many of us find it hard to take them seriously.

This is the main table they show in today's release for home owner purchase and remortgage (highlighting is mine):

Note that they claim that loans for house purchase in May (these are actual loans, not approvals) were up 13.1% by volume on May 2013 and 24.7% by value.

This gives figures for 2013 of (57,900 / 1.131) = 51,200 for volume and (£9.6bn / 1.247) = £7.7bn value.

Okay, so let's go back a year and look at their press release in July 2013 and see what they showed for May 2013 at that time:

Hmm, how odd. They give volume as 55,900 and value as £8.4bn. Somehow they now appear to have 'lost' 4,700 loans from May 2013, totalling £700 million. Oops.

So, either they've made a mistake on the percentages - meaning the numbers aren't up nearly as much year-on-year as they make out - or the May 2013 figures were originally significantly overstated. Either way, what faith can we have that the May 2014 numbers are accurate?

Thanks. In the past they (the CML) have referred to a statistical fog so imo they know that they might not be able to judge the MMR effect as their data is crap? It's not an official statistic but useful to know the shortcomings of the data. Alot of articles will be written off the back of their press releases but I think that materially downwardly revising may benefit us?